08/24/2012

Friends rally round Prince Harry as naked photos hit London streets

A souvenir shop displays a
facemask of Prince Harry in London on Friday. The royal is in the middle of a firestorm over naked pictures that have now become the centre of a debate over freedom of the press. (Reuters)

Slowly but surely, Prince Harry's troops are rallying.

A friend of the royal, who was with him during the now infamous Las Vegas strip billiards party last week, has come out to attack the girl who sold her cellphone pictures of Harry sans shorts. His defence comes just as one British newspaper breaks with protocol to publish the now famous naked Harry photos, and word comes that more photos are being shopped around.

Arthur Landon, one of the Prince's millionaire buddies and Vegas party-mate, admitted the whole affair put a "dampener" on the post-Olympics holiday.

"I obviously think it is really despicable that someone would accept Prince Harry's hospitality and then take these pictures," he told the Daily Mail. "Some people have been hinting that it was one of his friends who took the pictures. But that is absolutely not true."

Landon's defence was followed by some emerging details of what Harry, Landon and a several other friends were up to before hitting Las Vegas.

According to the Telegraph, postings on Landon's Facebook page reveal that the group spent a week on Sir Richard Branson's private island of Necker in the British Virgin Islands, celebrating the birthday of Branson's son Sam.

It was clearly party time 20-somethings. Landon's luggage featured a gas mask and a 'Captain Britannia" costume. Another picture shows a fellow passed out in the sand, under a caption that reads: "The perfect start." The face is obscured, but the shorts were identical to what Harry was wearing in Las Vegas.

What he wasn't wearing in Vegas became an internet sensation and word is more pictures from the strip billiards game may emerge.

Max Clifford, one of the highest profile publicists in the UK, told the BBC on Friday that he was approached by two American women who claimed to be among the 15 or so that were partying with the prince and wanted to sell their photos. Clifford said he refused to represent them. The photos that appeared on TMZ.com were purchased for about $16,000 from the Splash News agency.

The focus of the whole episode has shifted dramatically in the last few days, from a debate about Harry's behaviour to a press freedom issue.

For four days, after the photos were splashed across the internet in the rest of the world, Britain's newspapers felt handcuffed by the country's privacy code and didn't print the pictures. The Sun tabloid in London finally broke ranks and published the pictures in their Friday edition (above) and their website.

The UK's Press Complaints Commission received more than 850 complaints aon Friday bout the Sun's front-page coverage, but said they had all come from the public, not Buckingham Palace or from Prince Harry.

A former Sun editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, backed the paper in thumbing their nose at the code.

"If Prince Harry with no clothes on in a Las Vegas hotel room
surrounded by one naked woman and a load of other people he has
just met in a drinking-stripping game is not a story then it is
hard to know what is," he told the BBC.

Former British deputy prime minister Lord Prescott vilified the paper, saying it showed "absolute utter contempt" for the law. It is an especially sensitive issue in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that exposed underhanded journalistic practices by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World and spawned the Leveson Inquiry.

"It is not about privacy," he said. "It is about money, money, money. And
they know that by exclusively printing the pictures, assuming they
are the only (British) paper which does, they will get everybody
buying the paper to see this."

MP Louise Mensch disagreed. "Prince Harry, inviting people to his room, did not have an expectation of
privacy," she told the BBC. "More to the point, you can't have a situation where our press as a
bloc is so scared of the Leveson Inquiry they refuse to print things in the
public interest."

The Palace, which asked the PCC to remind editors about protecting privacy (Harry was, after all, on a private holiday and in a private suite), tried to keep a distance from the Sun's move.

"We have made our views on Prince
Harry's privacy known," said a spokesman. "Newspapers regulate themselves, so the
publication of the photographs is ultimately a decision for editors
to make."

Another question emerging from all this is the role Prince Harry's protection officers, who were with him at last Friday's party. Should they have conficated cameras at the door of the suite? Or are they simply there to protect Harry from physical harm and not try intervene in his lifestyle?

One of Princess Diana's former bodyguards criticized the live-and-let-live attitude that appeared to shown by Harry's guards.

“The moment you invite unknown people into your hotel room there is a
question of invasion of privacy and as far as security is concerned it
is potentially dangerous," Ken Warfe told the London Evening Standard.

"If one of these girls had planted drugs
or had a knife rather than taken pictures then the officers would be in
serious trouble. There should have been better security."

As for Harry, reports are he is keeping a low profile. He went directly to Clarence House when he returned to London, which means he would have bumped into his father Prince Charles. The Mirror newspaper says Charles advised his son to lie low. Good luck with that.

Posted by at 09:54:19 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Are there no privacy rights? As our legal system really only functions for the rich, unless Harry enforces his privacy rights, others may well lose them.

Potential future head of the Church of England. He is also in his late twenties so should know better. Then again he is his fathers son. The whole family is a joke. When are people going to grow up and get rid of these sponges of the public purse.

Harry chose to remove his clothes at a party and now is facing the consequences of that action. No amount of security or "handlers" can teach common sense, so maybe this experience will. Besides, he's almost 30 - time to grow up, Harry....

What about someone looking to nab Harry as a ransom? Just because Harry is a strapping male doesn’t mean he’s completely safe. Drink and hormones can weaken a fun-lovin’ boy’s defenses to the point where anything could happen.

And this time it was just some sneaky photos. Harry could potentially end up creating another Profumo scandal if he's this reckless. Better hope that the Cambridges put a lot of room between Harry and the throne at this rate.

It’s not security’s job to make moral judgements, their job is to keep their charge safe. I do think they failed on this one. They got lucky in that Harry is just embarrassed. Next time, the ending might not be quite so jolly, for him or the nation.

It's like this, Harry and the whole 'royal' family are public figures and their job is to inspire a nation and that includes having a high moral code. So the royalists say blame anyone but Harry - blame the fact that he's only in his late twenties (oh please) or blame that immoral girl for selling the pictures (public figure invites a group of women up to his room for sex and that girl is immoral?) or blame the guards. News flash! Royalty is yesterday for a reason - even most dictators know more about public image than this clown. Canada has to become a republic or just keep the GG and severe all other ties!

The whole Monarchy thing is about Selfishness ,how can it ever be a benefit when it costs admirably to maintain this unreality .
Millions could have a chance at a better life with what is Sqandred on decadence
and reputation

"This is about making money and nothing else." Both his security detail and himself should be more cognizant of such ramifications. There is always someone
looking to make a buck at someone else's expense.

This is the world we live in now, you can't take it back once its out there. Let this be a reminder kiddies.....

I feel bad for the situation he's put himself in but...he should know better.

Royals on Twitter

Royals on Facebook

Related Links

Legal Notice

TheStar.com
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.